Gantt v. Ward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gantt v. Ward

170 A.D.2d 194

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 194 (Gantt v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gantt v. Ward, 170 A.D.2d 194 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the respondent Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated June 20, 1989, which required petitioner to forfeit 15 vacation days, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Diane Lebedeff, J.], entered on or about Jan. 25, 1990) is dismissed without costs or disbursements.

It is conceded that petitioner, in a conversation with another police officer, referred to Police Officer Smithwick as an "Uncle Tom”, and that, when confronted by Officer Smith-wick, petitioner confirmed his earlier remark. This finding, being conceded, was clearly supported by substantial evidence, and was in itself sufficient to sustain the charges. The penalty imposed is not excessive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Determination of the respondent Police Commissioner of the City of New York, dated June 20, 1989, which required petitioner to forfeit 15 vacation days, is unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of Sup Ct, NY County [Diane Lebedeff, J.], entered on or about Jan. 25, 1990) is dismissed without costs or disbursements.

It is conceded that petitioner, in a conversation with another police officer, referred to Police Officer Smithwick as an "Uncle Tom”, and that, when confronted by Officer Smith-wick, petitioner confirmed his earlier remark. This finding, being conceded, was clearly supported by substantial evidence, and was in itself sufficient to sustain the charges. The penalty imposed is not excessive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Kupferman, Ross and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gantt-v-ward-nyappdiv-1991.